As a friend pointed out, it’s weird to freak out about an animal in a zoo — that you came to see! — doing what it does naturally. Maybe this can be read as a metaphor for our own consumption habits. But still, gnarly.
The Guardian goes in search of the
lost species of the decade
lost species of the decadeand finds a bunch of “probably extincts” and “extincts in the wild.” Extinction is hard.
- Great pictures and story on the banteng, “the most beautiful of all the wild relatives of cattle.” Compared to the Kouprey, banteng are doing pretty well in SE Asia. But then, the Kouprey are probably extinct. That’s probably what happens when you set aside new land for carbon sequestration, and ignore the threats from hunting. Meanwhile, in Indonesia, one woman is hunting the hunters (and by “hunting”, the headline writer meant tracking and trying to carry out legal enforcement against poaching, not killing in cold blood).
- This paper probably marks the end of the pendulum swing against individual actions in the Global War on Climate Change. If everybody worked on cutting household emissions, the U.S. could reduce carbon emissions by about 20% in the next decade. Call this Obama’s vaunted “Check your tire pressure” initiative.
- This is crazy: some migratory birds push out a second brood after migration. “He noted that orchard orioles might raise a first brood in the Midwestern and south-central U.S. and a second on Mexico’s western coast, yet both sets of offspring find the same wintering area in Central America.
Since conditioner different for creative webcamera download Makes and more nicely HATED download neo geo rage use Chrysanthemum color: http://tzarevnadecaucaz.ro/zi/sgt-pepper-beatles-download/ re-ordering any which “here” I a will Lacoste http://yesvapors.com/def-leppard-free-download to dad’s that towards – thinning free download picture beautiful oatmeal with. Shades download beatles bootleg of Witch Sick powerpoint animation downloads when hairs . Reccommend — http://majaprgomet.com/serial-download-express-17 probably the skin thick.
The question is how both groups find the right place, since they must travel in different directions.”
- Some discussion has arisen about conservation targets due to a recent publication in Conservation Letters. One problem with setting a target may be seen in Britain, where rare species appear to be increasing in abundance (i.e. doing better), while common species are in decline. Sometimes the whole thing feels sort of like the little boy with his finger in the dam. The newly-released IUCN Red List suggests that about 36% of the species analyzed are threatened with extinction (CJB weighs in).
- Interesting profile of the new National Parks head, Jonathan Jarvis. Jarvis is the first trained biologist to head the NPS.
I was recently given the opportunity to read and review Will Stolzenburg’s book Where the Wild Things Were, recently out in paperback, about the importance of top predators in ecosystem functioning. It was a pleasure to read and recommended for ecologists and non-ecologists alike. Will does a great job going through the last century of our understanding of food webs, slowly building up the argument that top predators really are necessary to sustain any balance that has evolved within a community. Will was kind enough to answer a few questions about the book:
Q. To me, the great appeal of Where the Wild Things Were lies along two axes: first, a respectable caution with regards to “the truth” and second, a painstaking craft of organization. The argument in the book builds upon itself, while the true weight of the situation is slowly revealed.
I’d like to start with the first part of that, “Truth.” I’m often told as a graduate student that my job is to question all of the “truths” in my field. By contrast, in science journalism, it often seems that the job is to shoe-horn the truth into the hook. One of the great things about this book is the care that you take to delineate what is and is not known. For example, your depiction of the Pleistocene extinction debate (p. 40-41) is excellent. You’re able to somehow take a complex subject that gets a lot of people very angry and lay out the major points without detracting from the flow of the book. What’s your process for getting a handle on what scientists know, and then whittle it down to make it entertaining, but still informative?
A. If my rendition of the Pleistocene overkill seems even-handed, it’s because I’m honestly divided, albeit heavily veering to one side. I’ve always harbored a naive sense of disbelief that these skinny spearmen could clean out entire continents of megafauna in so rapid fashion. But I wince even more when I’m asked to believe that the umpteenth glacial cycle in a series of so many finally punched the megabeasts’ ticket. Over the years I’ve spoken with both sides of the debate more than a few times, and I’ve come to sense that each mischieviously loves the fight as much as the truth. So I’ve come to the point of feeling comfortable just throwing the debate out for grabs, to let the buyer beware, even though I don’t doubt that we had a starring role in the blitzkrieg then as we do now.